EpeeGnome

Yeah, I saw. To be fair to them, I did respond after your last response, so perhaps that's why they jumped to responding to me instead. Who knows? And yeah, I was planning to give up on them if they did anything other than make a coherent response actually addressing my argument with something from the court docs, which I think is highly unlikely.

Seriously, read the actual fucking legal documents linked in that biased-ass article. They denied him bond while waiting for the real hearing due to the gang allegations. Nothing more, nothing less. The judges themselves refer to them as allegations in their findings. The traffic court thing is unrelated to him being a gang member, it is relevant to if he should be released while waiting, which is the only thing they were finding on. I read the orders myself, they clearly make no finding on if he's in a gang and no findings on deportation.

Ok, that's something. Let's see, the article headline still says "DOJ Releases Dossier Of Deported Maryland Man’s Alleged MS-13 Gang Ties." Emphasis added by me. Now why would they say "alleged" if the court already found him guilty? Ah, right, because those were bond hearings. Yes, I actually read the legal documents linked by that article and both court findings were that the unproven claims of gang affiliation, combined with the fact that he had missed traffic court in the past, were sufficient to deny release on bond until his status hearing could be held. No further hearing was ever held. At no point did the legal system establish guilt, make a definitive finding of fact, or make a judicial decision on his deportation.

So, unless you have other court records to link me to that show otherwise, then you are wrong: no such thing has been legally proven.

Edit: Even the appeals Judge refers to it as "allegations of gang affiliation" in their order affirming the lower court decision that you are calling proof.

Sure it has. Go on, do tell. Which court? What case? Who was the Judge?

I assume the term is referring to the person knowing only the vibes of the program they want to code rather than comprehending the details of what it needs to do.

Oh, these sort of things are never required. It's just, if you don't wear one they'll know you're not on their team. If you're truly loyal, you don't need to be told to wear one, you voluntarily choose to wear it. Any prefential treatment to those wearing it is completely coincidental, of course, wink wink.

Just guessing here but I imagine the ink doesn't contain any water, so an otherwise absorbent material that is treated with a hydrophobic coating would probably work for that.

I agree, it's insane that customs ever accepted a fictional port on uninhabited islands as a point of origin in the first place. That's the loophole they should close. It does appear that that's a thing that did actually happen though, so it's not a complete fabrication. I'd say customs should have been authorized to confiscate any such good until a non-fictional provinence was proven.

If the government can disappear one person without due process, then they can disappear any person without due process.

Yeah, I assume the now-former employee acted with full expectation of losing her job over this. She succeeded at bringing attention to something many people (myself included) hadn't heard about before, so she at least accomplished that much.

You're right, that does sound particularly like something an autistic person would say. It's also something I'd be perfectly happy to hear and engage with.

"New toilet paper, same shit" is how an old boss of mine used to say it. Good for if you want to go clever yet crude.